|
Hi, my question is simple: is there a dos command or winxp program that can be used to check the IP addresses of networked computers remotely? Basically my problem is, I have an ethernet cable connected from my computer to a piece of hardware that has an IP address. I can only check what that IP address is from my computer, not from that hardware. How can I do this?
Thanks!
Kelly Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
If this piece of hardware sits in between your computer and another, use tracert to the other computer. The IP address of each hop along the way should be displayed.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately the hardware and my computer are the only two nodes in the network, I just have an ethernet cable hooked directly to it, and there's no other way I can do it, it's a piece of military hardware and this is how it's set up. Basically the problem is that I have to connect to it using telnet or something similar in order to get some files off of it and I don't know what the IP address is.
Kelly Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no network engineer by any means so my suggestion is a most inefficient one. How about looping through all the IP addresses (2564) until you find the one that responds?
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Guess that's what I'm going to end up having to do, I feel like there should be an easier way though. Oh well, thanks.
Kelly Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothign that will tell you want the IP address is. There's no way to communicate with something that you don't already have the address for. You'll have to get the documentation on the device or someone will have to tell you what it is.
Or, you could, like the other poster said, ping every IP address until you find the one that responds. This could a VERY VERY VERY LONG time. But, you can narrow this down by trying only the private address ranges to start with. Which are:
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (about 65,534 addresses)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (about 1.04 million addresses)
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (about 16.7 million addresses)
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
For the network of two computers, your's and the military hardware, how are the IP addresses assigned? For instance, if your IP is DHCP assigned, then it's likely that the other hardware has a similarly assigned IP. On the other hand if your IP is static, someone must have assigned it to your PC and again it's likely that the other hardware has been assigned in a similar fashion. I'm not answering your question, but maybe it will give you an idea of other things to look at for your solution.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon]
GOOD DAY FOR: Moonlighting, as porn star Savanna Samson has launched her own wine label. Her Sogno Uno, an Italian red, received an "outstanding" 90 to 91 score from influential wine critic Robert Parker. "I wanted to do something my parents could be proud of," she said. (Reuters in CNNMoney.com)
|
|
|
|
|
I have read many answer that post to your question. But it seem that it does not relate to your question.
KellyR wrote: is there a dos command or winxp program that can be used to check the IP addresses of networked computers remotely?
If it is in the same LAN, and you also know the computer name, then try to use the PING command to ping directly to that computer.
KellyR wrote: Basically my problem is, I have an ethernet cable connected from my computer to a piece of hardware that has an IP address. I can only check what that IP address is from my computer, not from that hardware. How can I do this?
If you do not know about its name try to use IP SCANNER.[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I.m trying to get Norton Firewall 9.1.0.33 to see two PCs on a LAN on a friends PC. I did have it working last year, but it has now 'stopped' working, obviously my fault!
The problem is that if I set up the Trusted Zone, both PCs see each other, if I then reboot then the PCs can't see each other. If I change the Trusted Zone, and then put it back to what it was it works. Surfing the Net I can't find any sensible reasons/fixes for
this, so any suggestions?
Some detail on what I have done in detail
- Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
- PCs see each other
- Change Trusted Zone to 192.168.100.100 to 192.168.255.255
- PCs can't see each other, as expected.
- Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
- PCs see each other
- Reboot, PCs can't see each other.
The best solution I have seem it to get rid of Norton, but that would be too easy!
My current best guess is an auto update has changed something, or my friend has screwed it up, but that is probably beyond his skill level.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Ted Ferenc wrote: ...any suggestions?
Have you tried here?
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks but I thought Norton == Symantec?
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Ted Ferenc wrote: Thanks but I thought Norton == Symantec?
You are right. I'm not sure how I got that link from Symantec's site. Try here instead.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: I'm not sure how I got that link
Add more water!
Thanks, support was going to be my last resort, that is a good link, I was hoping some one here has seen this before.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Ted Ferenc wrote: Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
PCs see each other
Change Trusted Zone to 192.168.100.100 to 192.168.255.255
PCs can't see each other, as expected.
Set Trusted Zone range to 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255
PCs see each other
Reboot, PCs can't see each other.
In my opinion, don't set an IP address to a difference network id. Try to set 192.168.100.100 and another one is 192.168.100.125. Then reboot your computer. Try to test it whether it see each other or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I tried setting the specific IP addresses of each of the computers as well as an all encompassing range, that failed as well.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, in my opinion, you should consult with your norton firewall documentation. I could remeber that when windows xp sp 2 first release, it also introduce about new security feature which hide your PC on the network to prevent from a hacker. It also provide a documentation to configure sp2.
|
|
|
|
|
You will be sursprised to hear, I have read the documentation, it was as a last resort mind you! 
XP Security has been turned off, as I said it works fine util you reboot the PC.
Ah well, lets see if Symantec come up with an answer.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
The users' profiles in my LAN gets deleted after logoff.. I guess this is related to group policy, but I don't know exactly how...
I want to know how to remove this feature (i.e. I want the profiles to remain after logoff).
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
Check your user account group membership. As far as I know, guest account profile are deleted automatically when user log off. I also experience with my laptop running windows xp professional. My document are delete after I log off the guest account.
|
|
|
|
|
We have an application developed in c++ and the development environment is visual studio .net 2003. We have added a cpp program to the application which will create a log file containing the trace back details which will help us to identify the areas of application crashes. The log file will contain details about the file name, line number and the order of the called functions leading to the crash. The cpp program we had added is stackwalker.cpp which is downloaded from the net. This application is working fine in the system where we are building the application. But when we copy the executable alone to a different system where we dont have any supporting softwares like visual studio .net 2003, it is creating a log file but the log file does not have the necessary trace back details. Can any one say why the trace back details is not getting generated when we run the executable alone in a separate system. Is there any separate library files or dll files that we need to include along with the executable or do we need to make any changes in the environmental variable settings.
|
|
|
|
|
Why post this in the Operating Systems/SysAdmin forum?
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Yes or yes is necessary a Storage to configure Windows Cluster Service?
In Windows Server 2000 or Windows Server 2003
Thanks
Sory for my english, I'm from Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm.......What?? Your question didn't make any sense what-so-ever...
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
sebastianos wrote: Yes or yes is necessary a Storage to
What do you meant?
|
|
|
|
|
I am installing Microsoft CRM 3.0 on a Small Business Server OS.
I keep on getting errors stopping me from continuing the setup until corrected.
SqlServer agent (MSSQLSERVER) is not running on the server [server_name]
however sql server 2005 is installed and running fine!
2. How do you setup a reporting service for sql server 2005?
Regards,
Tintin
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
